Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Well, going back to this for a moment, let's take chimps or bonobos for a moment. If I remember correctly, homo sapiens are said to be closely related through an unknown ape type relative. Is this true as far as you're concerned?

Yes, about seven million years ago was when the split happened. And the evidence is pretty much a slam dunk. One has to be deep in denial to not see it.

Of course it is a bit more complicated than one single date:

Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor - Wikipedia

"The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee and bonobo) genera of Hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral population. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene)."

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what's the evidence for macro evolution?

It is endless. But this is a question where you need to learn what evidence is in the first place and a refresher of the scientific method is probably in order too:

Here is a starter. Do not nit pick too much:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

People can improperly deny evidence. And that standard seems low, but you must remember, creationists can't seem to find any evidence using that reasonable standard. When an observation is posted to you to see if it is evidence for the theory of evolution or not you need to ask only two questions. One is the theory of evolution testable. And it is. And it has been tested countless times. It has not been refuted. It has been confirmed again and again. The second question is does the observation agree with the theory of evolution. You can't just say "no" you need a very good reason to say no if you want to say that something is not evidence.

When it comes to scientific evidence it only supports the theory of evolution. Creationists are still in the children's section eating their crayons.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So what's the evidence for macro evolution?

It's been directly observed.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR
Speciation in real time

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's been directly observed.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR
Speciation in real time

And I should have also mentioned that he needs to know what macroevolution is.

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you explain the evidence that gnostic and Subduction Zone have presented? The palaeontological evidence is that there is a succession of fossils, from the Precambrian to the Pleistocene. Animals and plants that are alive today do not appear as fossils in ancient rocks: there are no horses, whales or primates in Mesozoic rocks; there are no birds in pre-Jurassic rocks; there are no ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs in Palaeozoic rocks. Modern fish are different from the fossil fish in Mesozoic rocks, and these again are different from Palaeozoic fish. Why is this the case? All living things must have a chain of ancestors stretching indefinitely far back into the past. Do you imagine that the first whale, or the first primate, or the first Eohippus or the first Iguanodon came into existence by spontaneous generation? If not, then you must accept that they were descended from ancestors that belonged to different kinds.

The anatomical and genetic evidence shows the same thing. Our anatomy and our genes are more similar to those of primates than to those of other mammals. Why should this be if all species were separately created? It is not as if we live the same sort of life as other primates; very few humans live in forests, and we are not good at climbing trees. Why are bats anatomically similar to mammals rather than to birds, and whales genetically similar to artiodactyls (hippos, cattle, pigs, deer, antelope, etc) rather than to fish? The anatomy of bats is clearly modified from that of ground-living mammals, and that of whales is modified from that of land-living animals. Why should a creator modify a ground-living mammal for flight and a land-living mammal for life in the sea rather than creating flying animals and marine animals from the start? Darwin showed that the bizarre flowers of orchids are derived by modification of the components of more normal flowers, rather than by creation ex nihilo. How can this have come about, except by a gradual process of accumulated change over many generations?

If you do not accept evolution, you must have some idea of where the observed diversity of living things came from. Would you like to tell us what this idea is, and how it explains the evidence better than the theory of evolution? I look forward to reading your reply.

I can't explain everything. I do know that genes can change or be modified. They can be tampered with by scientists as well.
My basic question is: where is the proof for macro evolution? What substance in the form of dna changing, bodies evolving, and the like, do evolutionists produce when explaining it? Please don't give me artists' rendition of what they think happened. Show me the real biological proof both with evolving dna, cells, and complete organisms as they were changing (evolving) before that time until that period called an explosion. Thank you. (What happened to the intermediate organisms? Disappeared in an earthquake way down underground?)

 

[YoursTrue]

It's been directly observed.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR
Speciation in real time

Speciation is not necessarily change from -- plants and fish to humans, is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't explain everything. I do know that genes can change or be modified. They can be tampered with by scientists as well.
My basic question is: where is the proof for macro evolution? What substance in the form of dna changing, bodies evolving, and the like, do evolutionists produce when explaining it? Please don't give me artists' rendition of what they think happened. Show me the real biological proof both with evolving dna, cells, and complete organisms as they were changing (evolving) before that time until that period called an explosion. Thank you. (What happened to the intermediate organisms? Disappeared in an earthquake way down underground?)

You can make poor excuses you cannot explain.

As you know you have no evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speciation is not necessarily change from -- plants and fish to humans, is it?

Speciation is a step in evolution. By the way plants are in a different clade than humans.

 

[Astrophile]

I can't explain everything. I do know that genes can change or be modified. They can be tampered with by scientists as well.
My basic question is: where is the proof for macro evolution? What substance in the form of dna changing, bodies evolving, and the like, do evolutionists produce when explaining it? Please don't give me artists' rendition of what they think happened. Show me the real biological proof both with evolving dna, cells, and complete organisms as they were changing (evolving) before that time until that period called an explosion. Thank you. (What happened to the intermediate organisms? Disappeared in an earthquake way down underground?)

The proof is the evidence that I, and other contributors to these forums, have already presented. First, there is the succession of fossils showing slow changes over the geological ages (for example the evolution from sarcopterygian fish to tetrapods during the Devonian period, and the evolution of the skulls and jaws of synapsids (mammal-like reptiles) to the mammalian state during the Permian and the Triassic periods. Second, the pattern of anatomical and genetic similarities and differences between living things that demonstrates their evolution from common ancestors. In particular, there is the nested hierarchy of genes and anatomy, and the existence of the same pseudogenes or broken genes and endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in, say, humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, that can only be the result of shared ancestry. What more evidence do you need?

Show me the real biological proof both with evolving dna, cells, and complete organisms as they were changing (evolving) before that time until that period called an explosion. Thank you. (What happened to the intermediate organisms? Disappeared in an earthquake way down underground?)

First, as you must know, individual living things don't evolve; populations evolve because of genetic changes from one generation to the next. Second, if you want to learn about intermediate or transitional fossils, I advise you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional-fossils , Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | Live Science , and Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero (Columbia University Press, 2007). When you have read this book and these websites, and their references, you will have a better understanding of how evolution works and you will be in a better position to discuss the issues.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can make poor excuses you cannot explain.

As you know you have no evidence for your beliefs.

As Michael Behe said (and I paraphrase), you see what you want to see. (About Haeckel's theories) Further, you have taught me what the spiritual definition is of 'blind.' Please do not take this as an insult. And, as Tyndale said, which I apply it to a large extent in this case, before he was strangled and burned at the stake, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes"

 

[Subduction Zone]

As Michael Behe said (and I paraphrase), you see what you want to see. (About Haeckel's theories) Further, you have taught me what the spiritual definition is of 'blind.' Please do not take this as an insult. And, as Tyndale said, which I apply it to a large extent in this case, before he was strangled and burned at the stake, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes"

Please, no false statements about others .

You are not being honest right now.

Tell me, why are you afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

The proof is the evidence that I, and other contributors to these forums, have already presented. First, there is the succession of fossils showing slow changes over the geological ages (for example the evolution from sarcopterygian fish to tetrapods during the Devonian period, and the evolution of the skulls and jaws of synapsids (mammal-like reptiles) to the mammalian state during the Permian and the Triassic periods. Second, the pattern of anatomical and genetic similarities and differences between living things that demonstrates their evolution from common ancestors. In particular, there is the nested hierarchy of genes and anatomy, and the existence of the same pseudogenes or broken genes and endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in, say, humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, that can only be the result of shared ancestry. What more evidence do you need?



First, as you must know, individual living things don't evolve; populations evolve because of genetic changes from one generation to the next. Second, if you want to learn about intermediate or transitional fossils, I advise you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional-fossils , Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | Live Science , and Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero (Columbia University Press, 2007). When you have read this book and these websites, and their references, you will have a better understanding of how evolution works and you will be in a better position to discuss the issues.

Perhaps you can find the intermediary lifeforms in those slow changes you talk about from sarcopterygian fish to tetrapods, clearly showing these slow, small changes in organisms that you can show me instead of telling me what is figured by evolutionary scientists? Maybe there are on record, with fossils showing how each organism slowly changed (evolved) from sarcopterygian fish to tetrapods. I remember when I went to school seeing a picture of a fish like organism crawling out to land and becoming something like a platypus. Where is the real record of this evolution?
Yet you say individuals don't evolve but populations do? Evidence other than imaginings and drawings, please. I will look at the link in wikipedia you provided when I have more time to peruse it, and I do hope you will be able to answer questions. It's like from bonobos and a "close relative" to other humanoid types, and then homo sapiens. Just doesn't make sense to me. But then, yes, I believe God is the Grand Creator, and over time things have happened (such as dwarfism and mutations) that are not from God.
I have really appreciated being able to as Subduction Zone questions because it has helped me see more about this situation, and frankly, why evolutionary science is not what it's purported to be by avid supporters of it. I've been reading a little about Prothero and will hope to get back to you. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, no false statements about others .

You are not being honest right now.

Tell me, why are you afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

Yes, I am being honest. What I find amazing is that you don't see. And if you do see, then I believe you are the one that's lying about what I'm saying.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, no false statements about others .

You are not being honest right now.

Tell me, why are you afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

By the way, are you saying Michael Behe did not say in other words about Haeckel? I'll get the exact quote for you if you like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I am being honest. What I find amazing is that you don't see. And if you do see, then I believe you are the one that's lying about what I'm saying.

No, it is not honest to keep trying not to learn.

Your incorrect opinions do not matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, are you saying Michael Behe did not say in other words about Haeckel? I'll get the exact quote for you if you like.

No, again why would you say that? Haeckel is a red herring at this point In effect an admission by you that you are wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

@SZ: Is the following a lie, perhaps you say taken out of context?
(a truthful statement offered by a well-known and esteemed supporter of evolution): "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [of his embryos] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases–in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent–simply copied the same figure over and over again.”
— “This View of Life”, Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History magazine, March 2000, p. 44.
Was this a lie, SZ?
Now then, we gotta go back to Darwin AND spontaneous generation from non-life to life. ?? Yes, they are related. That is abiogenesis and evolution. Very much so. That such persons like Behe and Gould realized something just isnt right with Haeckel's figurings (Gould calling these similarities fraudulent in some cases) shows that at least they're honest in that. But some will support and gloss over evidence or non-evidence in reference to these things. And I fully expect you to support Haeckel's theories in a majestic way.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it is not honest to keep trying not to learn.

Your incorrect opinions do not matter.

Do Gould's opinions about Haeckel's imaginary drawings and recapitulation theory matter?
I give Gould credit for being honest there about using the real evidence (not made up) of Haeckel's drawings and subsequent repeating them by educators over the years. Perhaps you didn't understand what I just said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@SZ: Is the following a lie, perhaps you say taken out of context?
(a truthful statement offered by a well-known and esteemed supporter of evolution): "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [of his embryos] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases–in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent–simply copied the same figure over and over again.”
— “This View of Life”, Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History magazine, March 2000, p. 44.
Was this a lie, SZ?
Now then, we gotta go back to Darwin AND spontaneous generation from non-life to life. ?? Yes, they are related. That is abiogenesis and evolution. Very much so. That such persons like Behe and Gould realized something just isnt right with Haeckel's figurings (Gould calling these similarities fraudulent in some cases) shows that at least they're honest in that. But some will support and gloss over evidence or non-evidence in reference to these things. And I fully expect you to support Haeckel's theories in a majestic way.

Gould was accurate in what Haeckel did wrong, but he overstated how wrong he was. This has already been explained to you.

You also need to drop the black and white reasoning. That all but guarantees that you will be wrong since the correct answer is usually somewhere in between.

Gould went too far when he called them fraudulent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do Gould's opinions about Haeckel's imaginary drawings and recapitulation theory matter?
I give Gould credit for being honest there about using the real evidence (not made up) of Haeckel's drawings and subsequent repeating them by educators over the years. Perhaps you didn't understand what I just said.

Now you are not being honest again. Your own sources say that the drawings were not "imaginary".

And I need to remind you that you do not understand the concept of evidence. So far you have run away from learning what is and what is not evidence. Why do you handicap yourself with self imposed ignorance?